Employees, who are not themselves a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or a member of a safety committee, have the right under sections 44(1)(c) and 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) not to be subjected to any detriment or dismissed by the employer on the ground that they brought to the employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with their work which they reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety. However, these rights only apply where the employee is an employee at a place where there is no such representative or safety committee, or it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise those matters with them. In applying that test, it is sufficient that there is a safety representative or committee for the place at which the claimant worked, even if they are based at some other location, provided they cover the place at which the employee works, according to the EAT.
Miles v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) [2023] EAT 62
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>